Ilja Booij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Aaron Stone wrote: [snip] > > In 2.1, we might add the code for fully configurable names, but start > > with a default of 'dbmail_' just like it would be in 2.0. > > > I don't think we should do this right now. If we make table names > configurable in 2.1, it will also function without a prefix. I don't > like the idea of making all these changes in the database layer at this > moment.
On the one hand, this change is abrupt before a release. But the people affected by it are those following the bleeding edge of rc's and CVS, folks who are more likely to understand the usefulness of a change like this. My main is concern is that we're going to get a wave of new users who will be much more interested in a consistent and polished appearance (where 'appearance' means command line switches, debugging output, mysql> show tables, etc.) Anything behind the scenes we can (and will ;-) be improving throughout 2.0.x, but anything that's external should be something we're proud of and happy to support for at least 1-2 years (yeah, we want 2.1 sooner than that, but it's folly to say we can have lots of cruft in 2.0 because we'll fix it in 2.1). Aaron --
